Inertia

[bluesgtr44]

Here is what I think are two versions of the same thing...I could be wrong. The one from "clues" found on this website does not mention who translated it or if it was derived from any particular publication....the second one comes from DT....




"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."
- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

From DT, pg 190-191...J. Collins Pub.


" - Such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other "automatics" - e.g. clockwork, aprings or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my "priciple of excess weight", is NOT just an external appendage, an "added-on device" which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the "essential constituent parts" which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PN principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or "point of rest", but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

This is no doubt very confusing....they are not even close in so many ways. Just adding a little fuel to the fire....


Steve

[rlortie]

Jim,

Ralph, by your definition a common carpenter's square is not a right angle. I cannot got along with your explaination. It seem you are trying to twist Bessler's word to meet you preconceptions.

A carpenters square is a right angle, I use them all the time and hope that mine is a true 90 degree right angle. THe three points are the blade the tongue and the corner where there join.

A weight hanging vertically on a disc will always be symmetrical to the axis at the point of suspension. or the load is placed on the pinning point and not the position that the rope may be hanging in relation, that is unless the weight is support by another point.

No CF can assist the wheel in turning if it is pulling out from the axis it must be offset as to pull on a quadrant or tangent of the wheel to develope torque.

If I hang my carpenters square on one side of a disc with the blade or tongue in line with the axis or axle, I have gained nothing. But if I offset it from the axle then it will put the load on the disc.

If the blade and tongue were both of the same size and weight, and not inline with the axle the square would keel in a cheveron shape at six o'clock. Unlike a pendulum at rest with heavy point down such a square would balance at this point and as such require half the force to lift it than a pendulum of the same weight.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

A weight hanging vertically on a disc will always be symmetrical to the axis at the point of suspension. or the load is placed on the pinning point and not the position that the rope may be hanging in relation, that is unless the weight is support by another point.

Ralph, please speak more plainly. This makes no sense. You may know what you're trying to say but I cannot understand it.

If the blade and tongue were both of the same size and weight, and not inline with the axle the square would keel in a cheveron shape at six o'clock. Unlike a pendulum at rest with heavy point down such a square would balance at this point and as such require half the force to lift it than a pendulum of the same weight.

Again this is short on sense. It takes the same force to lift a square and a pendulum of the same weight!

No CF can assist the wheel in turning if it is pulling out from the axis it must be offset as to pull on a quadrant or tangent of the wheel to develope torque.

This is where the right angle comes into play. Don't try to use CF to turn the wheel, rather use CF to swing the weights. Let the weight's change of location overbalance the wheel.

[rlortie]

Jim,

You wrote;

Again this is short on sense. It takes the same force to lift a square and a pendulum of the same weight!

True it takes the same force to lift any two masses of the same weight. But we are talking about a wheel and a radial lift, not a true vertical lift!

When a pendulum bob is at the bottom it is at the bottom. A chevron shape of equal sides (the square) sitting at the bottom has as much mass on the descending side as the ascending side. I agree that this is short lived as the wheel rotates but the fact remains that the square is not radially lifted by its full weight at 6:00 o'clock. For clockwise motion the right blade of our equal square is still descending.

You also stated:

This is where the right angle comes into play. Don't try to use CF to turn the wheel, rather use CF to swing the weights. Let the weight's change of location overbalance the wheel.

Now to this I agree, CF is a fictitious force and is not going to pull anything as it is not a puller until pulled or created. Yes you use it to pull the weights outward. But to be of value the weight must be contained in a cell or some type of lever/bar with a changing fulcrum point. weights pulling on a symmetrical pinned attachment will display the same amount of force at all points around the wheel.

I am sorry if you did not understand the first paragraph of my previous post, unfortunately I do not know how to phrase it any plainer. Maybe I should have cut it off with;

A weight hanging vertically on a disc will always be symmetrical to the axis at the point of suspension.

Go back to my above picture attachment and look at the horizontal bar with paired weights. Now imagine that bar and ascending weight is sitting on the axle as a fulcrum. The ascending side of the wheel is lifting nothing!
CF is pulling outward on the descending side. It is not radially in line with the axle and is pulling on the cantilevered weight which in turn is pulling down on the axle. In all you are creating a true centripetal force pulling the whole wheel downward.

Install a pinned roller guide at 10:00 above the bar and allow the bar to pry up against it while resting on the axle/fulcrum and you now have a compound levered force turning the wheel.

Take away the bar or lever and you have a simple wheel such as MT #1 through MT #8. We know these will not work. So the name of the game is to get the vertical bar and paired weights (left or right of axle) lifted as soon as possible.

Ralph

[graham]

I hate to get this thread back on topic but let me know what you think of this demo.
I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this.

http://groups.physics.umn.edu/demo/mech ... F1010.html

Graham

[LustInBlack]

Hmm ..

I don't know, maybe the torsion in the string is compensated with an equal weight .. !?

[rounder]

well the right angle 'term' to me could imply many definitions. as i don't like to rule anything out from judgment. quotes bessler saying * "possess the principle of motion internally" or "All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them." - pg 366
"The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied". - pg 362 --and to not use pure REASON alone for the answer.

[rounder]

heres a few pics

[DrWhat]

No post :)

I posted something but then decided to take it off!

[Tinhead]

heres a few pics

about the stamp picture ..
The right side of the circle stands for ORFFYRE.
The left side for ORFFTH ???

I think we discussed this before, but I can't find it. What was it about?

Cheers,
Rainer

[Fletcher]

Left side = Rath - [titled] / someone of importance - councillor

See Stewarts post ...

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 4156#24156

[iacob alex]

.....if you take a look at :
https://www.americanscientist.org/artic ... of-inertia
https://www.abc.net.au/science/bernie/secret1/two.htm
Anyway...we are living and playing this natural wonder...
Al_ex